RHOTIC RULES OK: Sociolinguistics.

Is Ur and Ar the same root word transliterated. "Ar" in Armenian means light, sun, fire, and in Indo-European.  Ur also means light, sun, fire in Semitic, like Hebrew ?? Why dont you understand that the IE root AR means light, sun, or fire. Here is the link with the Hebrew in case you dont understand the same root word means the same thing: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/16_english.html

So as I said AR means light, fire, or sun in Armenian, like Arev means Sun, or Areg. The word for God in Armenian is Ararich (also Astvadz). The double Ar is also found in Ararat, which means place of Arar, or the place where Ararich created in other words 75.24.236.45 22:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Another example is Ararat and Urartu, where Ur variation is Ar. So now with Germans, Persians, Armenians, all having the name Armen in their form like: Armin and Arman in Germans and Persians, we have a common link in the past as Indo-European(Aryan) peoples. Why is there any doubts about that, when the very names are there 75.24.236.45 22:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The root of the word Aryan could be Ar-yo, but its also the other form 'Ari' which is also found in ancient records, I'll try to get that too as a cited source. Ari was the earlier form of Ari-ya, which was found in the Armenian Highlands. That is where the Persua(Persians) were before migrating south. Another thing is that I forgot is, there are Aryan swastika symbols found in the Armenian Highlands dating to atleast the 4th millennium BC. Aryan swastika symbols exactly like the ones in India found. Yet another proof of Indo-Europeans in the Armenian Highlands in ancient times, besides the Kura-Araxes culture 75.24.236.45 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In the reference I gave here of http://www.avesta.org/znames.htm , this is what it says that Im referring to:

ARMIN: a dweller of the garden of Eden; son of King Kobad

Look carefully its in that avesta.org page 75.4.26.129 05:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(Peter Trudgill, A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press, 2003)

Rhoticity in British English

"[Rhotic accents are] accents of English in which non-prevocalic /r/ is pronounced, i.e. in which words like star have retained the original pronunciation /star/ 'starr' rather than having the newer pronunciation /sta:/ 'stah,' where the /r/ has been lot."

"Throughout most of the nineteenth century, non-rhotic pronunciations continued to be condemned, but by the time Daniel Jones's pronouncing dictionary was published in 1917, non-rhotic pronunciations had become characteristic of RP. The spread of non-rhotic pronunciation can thus be seen as a change 'from below,' beginning in nonstandard London English and spreading geographically northwards and socially 'upwards' until, in the early twenty-first century, it is the rhotic pronunciations that are marked as nonstandard in England. Even within rhotic areas there is evidence that younger people are less likely to pronounce /r/ in words such as arm. In other words, rhoticity is a recessive feature in England.""Sociolinguistically, there is more social stratification on the British model in the accents of New York City than anywhere else in North America, with upper social class accents having many fewer local features than lower-class accents. . . . New York City English, like that of Boston, is non-rhotic, and linking and intrusive /r/ are usual. It is interesting to note that Boston area, younger speakers are now becoming increasingly rhotic, especially among higher social class groups."The distribution of /r/ is one of the most widely researched sociolinguistic features. [William] Labov (1966/2006), in a groundbreaking study, reports on the social stratification of rhoticity in New York City. His general results are that the absence of [r] in coda position is generally associated with lower social prestige and informal registers. Labov argues that rhoticity is a marker of New York City speech, since it shows style-shifting and hypercorrection.
Omitting the 'R'

"In terms of phonology, many AAE speakers in New York City and many parts of the country tend to omit /r/ when it follows a vowel. This pattern, known as 'post-vocalic /r/-lessness' or “non-rhoticity,” leading to the pronunciation of 'park' as pahk and 'car' as cah. It is not unique to AAE and is found in the wider New York City vernacular among older and working-class white speakers, but not very commonly among young, upper middle class Whites." (Cecelia Cutler, White Hip Hoppers, Language and Identity in Post-Modern America. Routledge, 2014)
The Intrusive 'R'



"Intrusive /r/, heard in expressions like the idear of it and the lawr of the sea, arises by analogy with words like father, which quite regularly have a final /r/ before a vowel, but not before a consonant or a pause. For a long time, intrusive /r/ has been normal in educated speech after /ǝ/, so that the idear of it and Ghanar and India are perfectly acceptable. Until relatively recently, however, intrusive /r/ has been stigmatized when it occurred after other vowels, so that the Shahr of Persia and the lawr of the sea were considered vulgar. This now seems to have changed, however, and intrusive /r/ is widespread in educated speech after any vowel. Sometimes the intrusive /r/ goes on to attach itself permanently to the stem of the word, leading to such forms as drawring board and withdrawral. These are quite common, but probably not yet accepted as standard." (Charles Barber, Joan C. Beal, and Philip A. Shaw, The English Language: A Historical Introduction, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2012)
The Lighter Side of 'R' Dropping

"'R-dropping' America has inspired a humorous theorem called the Law of Conservation of R's (formulated by Edward Scher in 1985), which holds that an r missing from one word will turn up in excess in another: fawth (fourth), for example, is balanced by idears or the common second r in sherbert." (Robert Hendrickson, The Facts on File Dictionary of American Regionalisms. Facts on File, 2000)

In my attempt to analyse this non-rhotic phenomenon I discovered the special attribute of the phoneme /r/. in the minds of the original authors/creators, Ararich in the Armenian logos. I mean when you say Armenian to a Sociolinguist they will definitely agree that Armenian gets first prize as the most rhotic language in the world.

To continue we know that the presence or absence of rhoticity is one of the most prominent distinctions by which varieties of English can be classified. In rhotic varieties, the historical English /r/ sound is preserved in all pronunciation contexts. As for non-rhotic varieties, we know that speakers no longer pronounce /r/ in postvocalic environments. Postvocalic when analysed is when the /r/ is immediately after a vowel and is followed by a consonant. For example, in isolation, a rhotic English speaker pronounces the words hard and butter as /ˈhɑːrd/ and /ˈbʌtər/, whereas a non-rhotic speaker "drops" the /r/ sound, pronouncing them as /ˈhɑːd/ and /ˈbʌtə/. However when an r is at the end of a word but the next word begins with a vowel, as in the phrase "better apples", most non-rhotic speakers will pronounce the /r/ in that position (the linking /r/), since it is followed by a vowel as in this case. Not all non-rhotic varieties use the linking /r/ for example. Many speakers that use the linking /r/ generalize it as the intrusive /r/, applying it to words that traditionally do not end in /r/ (as in "Australia and New Zealand", where /r/ may be suffixed to Australia because the next word begins with a vowel, despite the spelling). but this is sometimes stigmatized.

The key to understanding as to why the people who feel free to speak as they please, who have no peer pressure, who for comfort and convenience have droped the /r/ yer find it necessary to bring it in as a suffix/copula this R that sociolinguists call the 'linking /r/'.

In phonetics, rhotic consonants, or "R-like" sounds, are liquid consonants that are traditionally represented orthographically by symbols derived from the Greek letter rho, including ⟨R⟩, ⟨r⟩ in the Latin script and ⟨Р⟩, ⟨p⟩ in the Cyrillic script.[citation needed] They are transcribed in the International Phonetic Alphabet by upper- or lower-case variants of Roman ⟨R⟩, ⟨r⟩:[1] r, ɾ, ɹ, ɻ, ʀ, ʁ, ɽ, and ɺ.

This class of sounds is difficult to characterise phonetically; from a phonetic standpoint, there is no single articulatory correlate (manner or place) common to rhotic consonants.[2] Rhotics have instead been found to carry out similar phonological functions or to have certain similar phonological features across different languages.[3] Although some have been found to share certain acoustic peculiarities, such as a lowered third formant,
The articulations of the approximant /r/: is called in English apical that is articulated with the tip of the tongue approaching the alveolar ridge or even curled back slightly.
Let me take you to the two R's of Armenian
What exactly is the difference in pronunciation between the two rhotics: Ռռ Րր

I would simply say that the first one is palatized and the other is just a plain trill. I read somewhere else that the first is a retroflex semivowel or something (maybe like English). Probably varies according to dialect.


The Armenian alphabet, including IPA transcriptions. <ռ> is the alveolar trill [r], and <ր> is the alveolar approximant [ɹ] (turned r).

One has to be aware that all writing on the subject is for an English-speaking audience, so these explanations, although vague enough to risk misinterpretation.

The problem with data from a native English speaker or any speaker is that oftentimes, we can't consciously tell the difference ourselves.

A native speaker of Armenian will tell you that Armenian has two R's, the first R (they call  "rrah") is often considered a trill. The second a "light" R (they call "rreh") rreh can also be trilled (depending on the speaker). When these Rs are word medial, they sound the same. when in a word-final position, "rrah" stays trilled, but "rreh" sounds more like a flap tap. In phonetics, a flap or tap is a type of consonantal sound, which is produced with a single contraction of the muscles so that one articulator (such as the tongue) is thrown against another. My name, Karekin uses "rreh" word medial, but like in word-finally. it usually sounds like a thrill. If you wanted to, however, you could flap/tap it. In Western Armenian "rreh" is never a retroflex R (like in American English). It's only in the Eastern (Iranian) dialect of Armenian where the "rreh" might sound  close to a retroflex.

My point is that it matters not what the language is each individual who is free to find their own root for articulating the R will find the esiest and most comfortable way to articulate it. The point for the one who introduced the phoneme as consonant into word and language did so knowing the character of the R is as in a Trill. How one decides to use it is not the creators problem. 

/ɑj/ — ⟨այ⟩

/ɑj/ can occur at the end of a word only for monosyllabic words. It is written ⟨այ⟩. For example: [ɑjˈɡi] ("field") is written այգի, [mɑjɾ] ("mother") is written մայր and [pʰɑj] ("verb") is written բայ. A polysyllabic word ending in ⟨այ⟩ is pronounced /ɑ/, the ⟨յ⟩ becoming silent (see above for an example).